News Bush sucks as President

  • Thread starter Zantra
  • Start date
R

RageSk8

I misspoke on more than wording. When trying to draw a distinction that the Bush Administration is overemphasizing states in their international agenda a went further I should have (and actually feel). States can be important. Iraq wasn't, no links to any terrorist organization has been found and in attacking Iraq we took precious resources off of known terrorists. Saddam supported terrorism ideologically, the worst he did in supporting terrorism was giving aid to terrorists was giving the families of suicide bombers money - not that this isn't bad, but it is not grounds for a war, especially a war that, again, required the reassignment of agents who were working on actual terrorists cells. So, in other words, I regret going as far as I did, which underemphasized States, but I wholeheartedly stand by saying that Bush and his supporters overemphasize States.
 

russ_watters

Mentor
18,589
4,822
Originally posted by megashawn
And I really wish something could be done about it. However, I can't help the fact that I was born to an american family, and I therefore am subject to the classes of an american society. Gotta love a forum where a person can say something that is totally off base.

And FYI, I built my computer myself for about $600. I can't afford to buy a Dell, nor would I want to. I had to go hungry for a week after that and skip a car payment.

I'd say that probably qualifies as middle class. Can I ask when the last time you had to go hungry was to get something you wanted?
I also built my computer. That doesn't change the point: we both have computers. I frankly don't believe that you went hungry to buy your computer. Eating is more important than owning a computer and you can get used/refirbished parts to build a functional computer for much much less.

Even still, its all about choices: I also own a $1200 used car and live in an apartment. A friend of mine is leasing (idiot) a $15,000 car and still lives with his parents.
, no links to any terrorist organization has been found
RageSk8, you mean BESIDES the terrorist camps, terrorist weapons caches, and terrorist's money, right? I'm wondering if terrorism against Israel is down right now even without a truce because it has become less profitable due to the overthrow of Saddam.
 
Z

Zero

Let's not play the 'our poor are richer than your poor' thing...stay on topic, gents.
 
R

RageSk8

RageSk8, you mean BESIDES the terrorist camps, terrorist weapons caches, and terrorist's money, right? I'm wondering if terrorism against Israel is down right now even without a truce because it has become less profitable due to the overthrow of Saddam.
I need links. From my knowledge no links between Saddam's government and terrorists has been found (at least al queda).
 
Z

Zero

Originally posted by drag
Greetings !

Well, I'm sorry to inform you Rage that apparently
your knowledge about terrorism is quite insufficient.
The Persian Gulf and the middle east ARE the sources
of terrorism. There you find the source, means and motives
of almost all terrorist activity on the planet. It is foolish
and pointless to try and chase every suspect in every country
when these middle eastern sources will just send many more
instead and give them even more money and weapons. The
only way to get rid of terrorism is to destroy the systems
that promote it - not just terrorist organizations but the
regimes and their rethoric in the countries where these
organizations are really located and where they are formed
and recieve support in all possible ways.

BTW, Iraq was without a doubt such a country.
There are many more.

Peace and long life.
Ummm....nope, you can't do that, mostly because unless you plan on committing genocide, violence will only beget violence. Plus, you don't see the government rounding up evangelical Christians, since they are the source of almost all domestic terrorism...by your logic, we should open death camps...I mean re-education camps... for the 700 Club viewers.

This is the sort of 'backyard bully' attitude that helps make Bush a lousy president.
 
Z

Zero

Originally posted by RageSk8
I need links. From my knowledge no links between Saddam's government and terrorists has been found (at least al queda).
The 'war on terror' is a front for invading the Middle East, and the Iraq/9-11 link is a game of 'Six Degrees of Saddam'...taking this idea one step further, G.H.W. Bush is responsible for 9-11.
 
Z

Zero

Another reason Bush sucks is because he has been working hard to smirk his way to complete U.S. isolation from the international community. How long is it going to be before America starts a war with Europe?
 
Z

Zero

Let's add to the list that, despite his efforts to the contrary, many of his supporters, appointees, and the like are watered-down versions of the culture that helped produce the breeding ground for terrorism in the first place: a crowd of religious zealots who probably admire the Taliban's goals, if not their methods. "Right idea, wrong God" seems to be an attitude that keeps popping up at random from this administration and its supporters.
 

Njorl

Science Advisor
245
8
And of course, there's this...

http://slate.msn.com/id/2090244/ [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Z

Zero

Originally posted by Njorl
And of course, there's this...

http://slate.msn.com/id/2090244/ [Broken]
Uh huh...one more time where he does something stupid, and pretends he actually thought about it first. Oh, he thought long and hard about something...how many votes he would lose if he didn't pander to his "moron" constituency.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Originally posted by Zero
Uh huh...one more time where he does something stupid, and pretends he actually thought about it first. Oh, he thought long and hard about something...how many votes he would lose if he didn't pander to his "moron" constituency.
No kidding. Every time he says something really stupid, his handlers spin as his being able to communicate with the average american. I'm not saying are schools aren't in trouble, but I really hope that the average american is not as stupid as this dingbat.
 
Z

Zero

Originally posted by Chemicalsuperfreak
No kidding. Every time he says something really stupid, his handlers spin as his being able to communicate with the average american. I'm not saying are schools aren't in trouble, but I really hope that the average american is not as stupid as this dingbat.
Right, and they turn it around and say that anyone who is smart is bad, as though a high IQ and real experience make you less capable to run things.

Here's a long article about Bush's lies, and why they are required by his philosophy:http://www.smirkingchimp.com/article.php?sid=13471&mode=&order=0&thold=0 ....and here's teh stem cell part:
That cavalier dismissal of expert analysis isn't limited to the national-security arena. In the summer of 2001, the Bush administration was looking for a decision the president could make on the use of embryonic stem cells for medical research. His Christian-conservative base wanted an outright prohibition. But such a ban would have alienated swing voters eager for the therapies that could come from that research, such as cures for Parkinson's disease. As Nicholas Thompson explained in the Washington Monthly, Bush's advisers came up with a scheme they thought would pass muster with both the core and the swing voters: the president would limit research to only those stem-cell lines that existed already. But before the decision was announced, federal scientists warned the administration that there simply weren't enough reliable existing lines to be useful to researchers. The White House ignored the warnings, which have subsequently proved all too accurate, and went ahead with the decision, thereby setting back crucial medical research for years
 
Last edited by a moderator:

drag

Science Advisor
1,055
0
Greetings !
Originally posted by RageSk8
Is it just me or is focusing on terrorists important? The ne0con approach to international politics is failing, again this is because too much emphasis is put on states. Terrorists cells are in every major Western nation. Does this mean we should attack France and England? Terrorists do not need a sympathetic government to opperate, so overthrouging even the most sympathetic to terrorists does little good. I have never understood the line of logic that you have just give...
I'm sorry to say, but you display your lack of understanding
and knowledge in the matter yet again.
First of all, the vast majority of terrorists are still there.
Second and most important, without their organizations
these individuals do not pose a threat. Destory all their
organizational capabilities, their funding, their intellegence, training bases and so on - turn the population of the
relevant countries into psychologicly balanced - normal
individuals in free democratic societies and there won't be
any terrorism.

Live long and prosper.
 

drag

Science Advisor
1,055
0
Originally posted by RageSk8
Iraq wasn't, no links to any terrorist organization has been found and in attacking Iraq we took precious resources off of known terrorists.
Amongst many other ties, Iraq had Al-Qaeda training camps
and activly supported Hizballa. It has been a safe house
for many terrorists for decades. It was quite likely that
it would use WMDs indirectly by selling them to terrorist
organizations as it did with conventional weapons.

Live long and prosper.
 
Z

Zero

Originally posted by drag
Greetings !

I'm sorry to say, but you display your lack of understanding
and knowledge in the matter yet again.
First of all, the vast majority of terrorists are still there.
Second and most important, without their organizations
these individuals do not pose a threat. Destory all their
organizational capabilities, their funding, their intellegence, training bases and so on - turn the population of the
relevant countries into psychologicly balanced - normal
individuals in free democratic societies and there won't be
any terrorism.

Live long and prosper.
LMAO!!! And after that, Bush will part the waters, and make the sun stand still?? The POINT of terrorism is that you can't attack it like you would a military target. Someone can throw a Molotov cocktail, turn the corner and they are a law-abiding citizen again. You cannot beat terorism with military tactics.
 
Z

Zero

Originally posted by drag
Amongst many other ties, Iraq had Al-Qaeda training camps
and activly supported Hizballa. It has been a safe house
for many terrorists for decades. It was quite likely that
it would use WMDs indirectly by selling them to terrorist
organizations as it did with conventional weapons.

Live long and prosper.
What WMDs?!? The ones we sold them, or the ones Bush pretended they had? How can non-existant weapons be a threat? America apparently is just as guilty, BTW...we had terrorists training on U.S. soil, we have WMDs, and we have supported terrorism in the past. Shall we attack ourselves, or ask the U.N. to enact sanctions against us?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

drag

Science Advisor
1,055
0
Greetings !
Originally posted by Zero
Ummm....nope, you can't do that, mostly because unless you plan on committing genocide, violence will only beget violence. Plus, you don't see the government rounding up evangelical Christians, since they are the source of almost all domestic terrorism...by your logic, we should open death camps...I mean re-education camps... for the 700 Club viewers.
Thank you for your "interpretation" of my messages.
I'd appreciate it if you avoid it in the future.
Maybe I need Russ's signature.
Originally posted by Zero
The 'war on terror' is a front for invading the Middle East...
hmm... I guess some people won't agree to any action until
just their own house is blown up, not just that of the neighbour.

Live long and prosper.
 
Z

Zero

Originally posted by drag
Greetings !

Thank you for your "interpretation" of my messages.
I'd appreciate it if you avoid it in the future.
Maybe I need Russ's signature.

hmm... I guess some people won't agree to any action until
just their own house is blown up, not just that of the neighbour.

Live long and prosper.
Just as soon as there is a threat, we should take it seriously. In the absense of one, we shouldn't act for the sake of acting.

And, I didn't tell a lie about you or Russ...I just took your logic to the next level, to point out the flaw in your reasoning.
 

drag

Science Advisor
1,055
0
Originally posted by Zero
What WMDs?!? The ones we sold them, or the ones Bush pretended they had? How can non-existant weapons be a threat? America apparently is just as guilty, BTW...we had terrorists training on U.S. soil, we have WMDs, and we have supported terrorism in the past. Shall we attack ourselves, or ask the U.N. to enact sanctions against us?
I have to admit I am, repeatedly, having considrable difficulty
in discussing politics with you. I just can't understand
how you can actually believe what you say. At first, I assumed
this is because you lacked the knowledge on these specific
subjects, however, later on I see that you either know some things
already or you are informed of them during the discussion and yet your opinions remain as they were. Oh well... the disadvantages of democracy, I guess.

Live long and prosper.
 
Originally posted by drag
I have to admit I am, repeatedly, having considrable difficulty
in discussing politics with you. I just can't understand
how you can actually believe what you say. At first, I assumed
this is because you lacked the knowledge on these specific
subjects, however, later on I see that you either know some things
already or you are informed of them during the discussion and yet your opinions remain as they were. Oh well... the disadvantages of democracy, I guess.

Live long and prosper.
Which of zero's arguments do you disagree with? That we sold WMD to Iraq? (have you seen the photo of Donald Rumsfeild shaking hands with Hussein?) That Bush lied to congress and the american people? (do you remember yellow-cake story? The state of the union address where Bush lied about WMD?) That Bush lied about the imminent threat of Iraqi WMD against the US? (the repeated false connections between 9-11 and Iraq? Others too many to name) That the US has trained terrorists on its soil? (9-11 highjackers, Timothy McVeigh, School of the Americas?) That the US has supported terrorists? (Iran/Contra?)
 

russ_watters

Mentor
18,589
4,822
Originally posted by drag
I have to admit I am, repeatedly, having considrable difficulty
in discussing politics with you. I just can't understand
how you can actually believe what you say. At first, I assumed
this is because you lacked the knowledge on these specific
subjects, however, later on I see that you either know some things
already or you are informed of them during the discussion and yet your opinions remain as they were. Oh well... the disadvantages of democracy, I guess.

Live long and prosper.
This is why I am far less active in these discussions than I used to be. Because I KNOW Zero has the facts, his positions and what he says about them are just flat out baffling.

And maybe this is just a case of 'the more you learn, the less you know' but the more I see of Zero, the less sense he makes. I think his tone has changed in the past few months, but it could just be that I'm getting more and more information (facts and opinions) that just don't jive with the things he says.
 
Last edited:
R

RageSk8

I have to admit I am, repeatedly, having considrable difficulty in discussing politics with you. I just can't understand how you can actually believe what you say. At first, I assumed this is because you lacked the knowledge on these specific subjects, however, later on I see that you either know some things already or you are informed of them during the discussion and yet your opinions remain as they were. Oh well... the disadvantages of democracy, I guess.
The funny thing is that this is how I (and from my readings on this forum, Zero as well) feel about most of your and Russ's posts. Part of the problem is that both sides (conservatives, and liberals) pick and choose which evidence to emphasize (this is the whole problem of bias). But, I think, the larger problem is that we ask different questions (maybe not on this issue but most issues). This is not a disadvantage of democracy, it is one of the core advantages of democracy. By having different people attack issues at different angles and debating, our society hardly ever becomes myopic. Sure views hardly change until new evidence is produced by one side, but a single view, a single perspecitve never becomes dominant.
 
Z

Zero

Originally posted by drag
I have to admit I am, repeatedly, having considrable difficulty
in discussing politics with you. I just can't understand
how you can actually believe what you say. At first, I assumed
this is because you lacked the knowledge on these specific
subjects, however, later on I see that you either know some things
already or you are informed of them during the discussion and yet your opinions remain as they were. Oh well... the disadvantages of democracy, I guess.

Live long and prosper.
Oh well, I feel exactly the same way about you and Russ...ignorant(from my perspective) beyond belief about certain things, and I KNOW neither of you are stupid...long live the 1st Amendment, I guess...
 
Z

Zero

Originally posted by Chemicalsuperfreak
Which of zero's arguments do you disagree with? That we sold WMD to Iraq? (have you seen the photo of Donald Rumsfeild shaking hands with Hussein?) That Bush lied to congress and the american people? (do you remember yellow-cake story? The state of the union address where Bush lied about WMD?) That Bush lied about the imminent threat of Iraqi WMD against the US? (the repeated false connections between 9-11 and Iraq? Others too many to name) That the US has trained terrorists on its soil? (9-11 highjackers, Timothy McVeigh, School of the Americas?) That the US has supported terrorists? (Iran/Contra?)
I'd like to see someone argue these points too, instead of hiding behind the 'you just don't know anything' posts. Teach us!
 
Z

Zero

Originally posted by russ_watters
This is why I am far less active in these discussions than I used to be. Because I KNOW Zero has the facts, his positions and what he says about them are just flat out baffling.

And maybe this is just a case of 'the more you learn, the less you know' but the more I see of Zero, the less sense he makes. I think his tone has changed in the past few months, but it could just be that I'm getting more and more information (facts and opinions) that just don't jive with the things he says.
I'd have to ask where you are getting your 'facts'. I know you don't go in for blustery right-wing whackos like Rush Limbaugh, so what sources are you using?
 

Physics Forums Values

We Value Quality
• Topics based on mainstream science
• Proper English grammar and spelling
We Value Civility
• Positive and compassionate attitudes
• Patience while debating
We Value Productivity
• Disciplined to remain on-topic
• Recognition of own weaknesses
• Solo and co-op problem solving

Hot Threads

Top